From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9074 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2003 17:45:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 9062 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2003 17:45:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO khms.westfalen.de) (62.153.201.243) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Sep 2003 17:45:23 -0000 Received: from root (helo=khms.westfalen.de) by khms.westfalen.de with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.22) id 19yaw5-0006ix-BA for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:45:21 +0200 Received: by khms.westfalen.de (CrossPoint v3.12d.kh12 R/C435); 14 Sep 2003 19:43:53 +0200 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:10:00 -0000 From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Message-ID: <8trZVHKmw-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Lots of suggestions for the gcc manual MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? References: X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1 X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00626.txt.bz2 stl@caltech.edu (Stephan Thomas Lavavej) wrote on 13.09.03 in : > I propose a clearer layout would be to begin the document with > -fsyntax-only, -pedantic, -pedantic-errors, and -w as it currently > does, and then to begin a whole new section: Warnings Included In -Wall. > Every warning that -Wall enables would go in that section and nothing > else. If a warning can be further modified, as -Wformat can be, then > it should link to /another/ section that explains all the modifications > that can be done, but under no circumstances should any warnings not > in -Wall appear in the -Wall section. I have an alternate proposal: every warning that is in -Wall should be listed as `-Wformat' (in -Wall) and similar for -Wextra. Oh, and for always-on-but-can-be-disabled there should be a similar remark right after the option name, possibly "(default on)". Similar "(C++ only)" and whatever else seems appropriate. Apart from that, I'd like these to be sorted strictly alphabetically. Another thing that would be very good would be to include the exact warning text(s) triggered by the warnings; this would make it much easier to find the relevant option when you have a message (and that option is, after all, the only place you are likely to find any kind of explanation). MfG Kai